Why are you even asking this question? If you had read the OP at all you should already know the answer to this.Originally Posted by Firstfruits
Good bye.
Why are you even asking this question? If you had read the OP at all you should already know the answer to this.
Neither Jew Nor Gentile
With regards to what I have read I would have to say that there is Revelation is yet to come. Revelation is incomplete.
Thanks and God bless you!
Firstfruits
Good bye.
First-century Christians were not just Jews... there were Gentiles as well. To answer your question, I don't believe the Revelation becomes inaccessible or irrelevant to Christians of all times. After all, the letter to the Romans was just that: written to first-century Christians in Rome. That doesn't make the teachings of the book irrelevant to us living in the 21st-century outside of Rome. It may not have been addressed to us, and it may not have been written about us, but it can still apply to us in a manner of instruction and learning and glorifying God. In the same way, just because partial preterists believe that most of the Revelation was fulfilled in the first-century does not mean those portions of the book that were fulfilled are irrelevant to us in the 21st-century.
I do. I believe Paul was referring to the soon-coming "binding" of Satan.I agree with you the “en tachos” literally means quickly, + shortly, + speedily. But then you conclude that “John was telling his original readers that the fulfillment of the books was going to come upon them within a brief amount of time”. But the same word “en tachos” is found in Ro 16:20, Paul telling the saints that God will bruise Satan under their feet “en tachos”. I don’t think you would conclude that this was fulfilled within the life times of those first century saints?
I do. God avenging his first-century elect took place in 67-70 AD.Or in Lu 18:8 when God speaks of avenging His elect “en tachos”.
Good bye.
If you don't mind, I would like to know the reason you were asking such questions? Again, if you had read the OP at all you would have already had the answers to all of the questions you asked. So why did you feel the need to ask questions to which the answers were provided in the very first post of the thread?
Neither Jew Nor Gentile
The first century must affect what we believe happens in the future, Jesus return is future but the events of the 1st century are what is needed for Jesus to return.
Firstfruits
Good bye.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
I'm asking for the third time now: Why did you ask all of those questions if the answers were already given to you in the OP? Did you not read the OP? Did you read it but were confused? Did you read it but were trying to trap someone in a contradiction?
"Christ is all" Col 3:11
****************
**Mod-Staff Note**
****************
Hey guys, just wanted to take a minute, and clear up some apparent misunderstanding that seems to be bubbling up from a few posters who've joined this thread towards the end here.
This thread's intent is not to say that All of Revelation is Past.
Some of you guys seem to be making this mis-assumption, and then trying to argue against it. (that's a strawman, whether intended or not)
The OP's intent was not to present the idea that ALL of Revelation is past; rather the OP's intent was to spend some time looking at Revelation from the Partial-Preterist(allowed), NOT FULL-PRETERIST(not-allowed) position.
Just wanted to remind everyone of that. If you're interested in the OP's study, then by all means, participate and enjoy. But if you just flat-out disagree or are one of the ones misunderstanding the OP, then please step back and watch; but don't derail.
If you wanna start your own thread about a differing approach and interpretation of Revelation, then by all means do so....but let's keep this one focused on the OP's intent....which is from the perspective of the Partial-Preterism interpretation.
Please don't make the staff have to delete further derails, respect the OP just as you would want them to do if you were the OP of a different topic they might disagree with.
Thanks one and all.
Neither Jew Nor Gentile
The things that Jesus said would happen before his return are the things which are said to have already happend such as the beast and the tribulation. We are not told that there we would have to wait long after the tribulation for his return.
Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mt 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
What happened in the past regarding the beast of that time and what believers went through did not lead to the return of Jesus.
I hope that helps to explain what I am saying.
God bless you!
Firstfruits
Neither Jew Nor Gentile
Thanks David,
Noted and undertood.
God bless you!
Firstfruits
Good bye.
I agree, it did not return to the Second Coming of Christ. But as I explained in the OP, under the summary of chapter one, the partial preterism position is that the "coming of the Son of Man" (including the one in Matthew 24.30) is not referring to the Second Coming, it is referring to the "judgment coming" of 70 AD.
senior lurker
What about Rev. 16:15? I suppose that also doesn't refer to the second coming in the PP view?
Good bye.
Correct. The majority of the prophecies in the book are about the events leading up to 70 AD, and the beginning of the "thousand years", which have progressed from then until now. Chapter 20 ends with the Second Coming and final judgment.
senior lurker
But wouldn't you agree, that Rev. 16:15 is directed at the church?
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. (Rev 3:18)
Good bye.
It is directed at the wicked.
Behold, I am coming like a thief!
Every time the "coming like a thief" analogy is used in the New Testament, it is used in the context of punishment, not preservation. In Matthew 24.43, it is compared to the coming of the flood in the days of Noah. In Luke 12.39 it is used to mean distress upon those who "fall asleep" before the thief comes. In 1 Thessalonians 5.2 it refers to "the Day of the LORD", in which "sudden destruction" comes. It is again used in 2 Peter 3.10 in referring to the time of judgment, when the "elements" are dissolved. (Note: The Greek word translated as "elements" is only ever used in the New Testament to refer to the Old Covenant. Peter is not talking about the dissolving of physical elements, he is talking about the dissolving of the Old Covenant. See Hebrews 8.13.) It is used in Revelation 3.3, in which Christ threatens the church of Sardis to "wake up", or else he will "come like a thief". The "coming like a thief" analogy is never used to refer to the preservation of the Church, but instead it refers to the destruction of the wicked.
Blessed is the one who stays awake, keeping his garments on, that he may not go about naked and be seen exposed!
Yes, this is the warning Christ gives to the church of Laodicea. Meaning... if they don't "wake up", they will be caught up in the "sudden destruction" of Christ's "coming like a thief". Revelation 16.15 is Christ's last minute admonition to the Church, just before the "judgment coming" of 70 AD. "I am coming like a thief! Wake up!" he implores the Church, "If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you."
I live here!
Greetings Mark,
When was the Old Covenant dissolved? Would you not agree that even though those first century Jews did not understand fully while the Temple remained standing, and in fact continued to make sacrificial offerings in the Temple, the Old Covenant ended when Christ went to the cross?
Heb*9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb*9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Heb*9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb*9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb*9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb*9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
You see Christ coming in judgment in AD 70 as the end of the Old Covenant. In this you miss the fact that Christ took away the Old to establish the New at His cross and resurrection.
It is to those who look for His coming again that He will not come as a theif. They alone will be redeemed, but for those who fail to keep watch, Christ will come suddenly at a time they are not expecting, and will therefore sudden destruction will come upon them.
Many Blessings,
RW
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks